MEDICAL EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM (MESP)

2/23/2021

2020-29-07

HEALTHCARE EDUCATION

SCHOLARS PROGRAM (HESP) BROCHURE

2020-2021

Department of Innovation in Medical Education (DIME)

The University of Ottawa

Faculty of Medicine

RGN 2211, 451 Smyth Road

Ottawa, ON K1H 8M5

Tel: (613) 562-5800 ext. 8092

Email: [email protected]

Timothy J. Wood, Ph.D., Director

Scott Rauscher, HESP coordinator

[email protected]

Note: all sessions will be online and administered using ZOOM , unless otherwise specified. Session are scheduled on Tuesdays

from 8:30 am to 12:00pm

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2020-2021 PROGRAM PLANNING COMMITTEE ..................................................................... 3

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES ....................................................... 4

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTVES BY CONTENT DOMAIN ......................................................... 5

SCHOLAR’S ROLE ....................................................................................................................... 6

COMPLETION OF HESP .............................................................................................................. 9

HESP EVALUATION FORM ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

HEALTHCARE EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM ......................................................... 11

SESSION-SPECIFIC LEARNING OBJECTIVES ...................................................................... 13

THE UOTTAWA DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM ............................ 18

CME/CPD CREDITS .................................................................................................................... 20

3

2020-2021 PROGRAM PLANNING COMMITTEE

Timothy J. Wood, PhD

Professor

Department of Innovation in Medical Education

University of Ottawa

Avril Lusty, MD Urology The Ottawa Hospital

Bach Nguyen, MD, FRCSC Fellow Obstetrics and Gynecology The Ottawa Hospital

Sakshi Malek, MD Obstetrics and Gynecology The Ottawa Hospital

Jason Frank, MD, MA(Ed), FRCPC Associate Professor Department of Medicine

Douglas Archibald, PhD

Director of Research and Innovation

Department of Family Medicine

University of Ottawa

Susan Humphrey-Murto, MD FRCPC Med

Interim Director Research Unit

Department of Medicine

Ottawa Hospital

4

PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Preamble:

The overall goal of the Healthcare Education Scholars Program is to foster a sense of academic scholarship

in healthcare education. The intent is to provide some theoretical scaffolding to those activities that our

clinician educators take part in on a daily basis in order to produce more effective healthcare providers.

We aim to inspire innovation and scholarship among the participants, as well as develop a local community

who benefit from mutual support, and ultimately provide leadership for the next generation of clinician

educators.

Process:

The approach is to introduce the participating clinician educators to a broad overview of the field of

healthcare education. Each weekly session will consist of 3.5 hours of planned activity, beginning

typically with a didactic introduction (based on assigned homework reading), followed by group discussion

or small group work (to promote active learning), and ending with a reflective component (labeled an

“educational autopsy”) to encourage scholars to identify effective instructional techniques among those

used in each session. This latter activity has been shown to be very powerful in promoting the power of

modeling on subsequent retention and application of concepts.

5

EDUCATIONAL OBJECTVES BY CONTENT DOMAIN

Domain: Principles of Education and Learning

Scholars will be introduced to major concepts in the field, and form a basis for future

sessions. A glossary of terms will be provided. Topics covered will include Principles of

Adult Learning, Writing Learning Objectives, Choosing a Teaching method.

Goal: Understand the underlying principles of medical education, with an emphasis on

educational management principles and learning theory.

Domain: Assessment and Evaluation

These sessions will cover psychometrics, including the theory of test construction, as well as

principles of individual learner assessment and program evaluation. Topics will include

Choosing an Assessment Method, Item Writing, Competency Assessment, and Program

Evaluation.

Goal: Participants will develop a broad-based understanding of assessment issues in the

educational context, targeted at the individual as learner.

Domain: Teaching Methods

These sessions will introduce scholars to effective techniques and resources available for

improving teaching in the clinic, on the ward, and in the lecture hall. Topics include Giving

Effective Feedback, and Simulation in Medical Education.

Goal: Participants are going to learn new teaching techniques, with an opportunity to practice

them.

Domain: Educational Research Methodology

Scholars will be introduced to basic methodology in educational research, with applications

and examples taken from healthcare education. Topics include Survey Research and

Questionnaire Design, Designing a Research Question, Funding in Healthcare Education,

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods.

Goal: Participants are going to learn basic methodology in educational research.

Domain: Professional and Leadership Development

These sessions introduce scholars to leadership skills and issues and opportunities in the

academic healthcare setting. Topics include Organizational Change and Strategies for

Capitalizing on Educational Leadership Opportunities.

Goal: Participants will know principles of effective leadership in the context of an academic

health center. There will be some emphasis on understanding educational administration.

6

SCHOLAR’S ROLE Scholar–Consultant Relationship

Session leaders (consultants) have volunteered their time to help you understand the process of medical education and are excited about the opportunity to assist you in developing projects for innovation or scholarship. Please note that the consultants are here to advise you in the process of developing your project, not necessarily in the content. The consultants are also available for advice about your professional development in medical education and can help you recognize opportunities for other roles, resources, and collaborators. We will help you identify consultants with the expertise and resources necessary for you to make progress in this field and to develop your teaching role and responsibilities.

Apprentice Role/Educational Autopsy

One of the roles that the scholars take on during HESP is what we have termed the “Apprentice.” In this role, a scholar is linked with a presenting faculty member for a specified future session. The sessions to which a Scholar is assigned to serve as the Apprentice are shown in the HESP Session Calendar. Approximately one month prior to the session, the Apprentice should contact the Session Presenter, to discuss the scheduled session and confirm the times and homework. We want to include the scholars in the planning process, both as an educational experience and as a means to increase the relevance of the material to scholar needs and interests. The presenter may also be unfamiliar with the online features of ZOOM and so the apprentice should be prepared to answer questions related to using ZOOM or other online teaching tools. During the session, the Apprentice will observe what worked and what could be improved, focusing on the educational process used in the session. Because sessions will be online, the apprentice will also be expected to moderate the session. This will include introducing the Presenter to the class, and monitoring the chat function so that the Presenter will be notified when there are questions. Immediately following the presentation, the Apprentice leads a reflective discussion (the "Educational Autopsy") with the other Scholars, examining how the specific activities contribute to, or detract from, the session’s objectives, and what alternative methods might have been considered. Following the session, the Apprentice may share a constructive summary of the educational review with the presenter.

7

Scholar’s Role for each HESP Session The bulk of each HESP session will be devoted to a topic relevant to medical education practice, research and development. The role for all Scholars for each HESP session is described below.

1. Prior to the HESP Session This is a good time to think (both conceptually and operationally) about what it means to learn. Learning is usually defined as a change in behavior. However, before an observable/measurable change in behavior occurs there are often interim steps. For example, one form of learning is the acquisition of knowledge that will subsequently lead to a change in behavior. Also, a change in attitudes can lead to a change in behavior. With skills, the desired change in behavior may be integrated into the learning process itself, e.g. practicing part of the physical examination.

2. Observing the HESP Session When we think about evaluating a learning session often the first thing that comes to mind is “Did people like the session?” “Did they like the instructor?” While these are valid questions to address during the educational autopsy they are not usually the most instructive questions. In most cases, the primary focus of an educational autopsy should be on questions about the impact of the educational methods used during the HESP session on the learning outcomes, desired or actual. A well-designed educational session has clear objectives leading to the selection of educational methods, which have a high probability of achieving those objectives, (i.e. resulting in the type of learning desired).

As you observe an HESP session keep the following question in mind. “Are the methods being employed in this session well suited to the nature of the educational goals?” For example, is the primary objective to facilitate a change in attitudes toward some aspect of medical education, or is the primary objective the acquisition of knowledge designed to make the learners more effective medical educators? Educational methods designed primarily to influence attitudes are generally different from those designed primarily to influence knowledge, and are usually different from those designed to help people acquire skills. Although these categories are not mutually exclusive most educational sessions have a primary objective(s) that involves either changes in knowledge, skills, or attitude, leading to a change in behavior.

3. Conduct of the HESP Educational Autopsy

The purpose of the educational autopsy is to facilitate a critical examination of the HESP session so that we

can glean useful information about the processes of teaching and learning. We hope that these insights will

be subsequently employed by the scholars in their own teaching and medical education research. Again,

while it is quite acceptable to ask people whether they enjoyed the session and/or liked the instructor’s

style, we strongly encourage you to also focus on a critical examination of the educational methods

employed. How did the method(s) fit with the educational objectives? Was the method employed

effectively?

Although the Apprentice will lead the educational review, all scholars will participate. The autopsy itself

can be conducted as a large group discussion in which these issues are addressed systematically or you can

use your creativity as an educator to make the autopsy a more interesting educational experience by

employing some of the educational methods you have observed and discussed to date. We are available to

you at any time for consultation prior to or after your conduct of the educational autopsy.

8

4. Evaluate the Session

Scholars are expected to complete evaluations after each session. Evaluating a session serves two purposes:

1) it provides feedback to the speaker and the course administrator 2) the majority of instructors donate

their time to teach, therefore in exchange the evaluations is used in the instructors teaching dossier.

Scholar’s Hour The Scholar’s Hour is designed specifically to give each scholar an opportunity to pursue an area of interest with the rest of the group. This could take the form of a group discussion on practical application and problem, a review of a journal article, a experiment, or some other creative format. Note that all scholar hour presentations should have an educational component. Some expansion on these options follows.

1. Educational Experiment The “educational experiment” gives you an opportunity to try something new in a safe environment and to get valuable feedback. The type of experiment is entirely up to you. You can do a small group activity, try a problem-based learning module, practice a case-based lecture, pilot test an innovative evaluation method, get feedback on a computer-based instructional unit, etc. Use this as an opportunity to try something new that might be useful in your present responsibilities or that is of interest to you for more general reasons.

After your experiment, you will have the chance to get feedback from the group. You will lead the feedback session. In order to do this effectively, and to give you some guidance in planning your session, we ask you to answer the following questions. Use these questions to help prepare your experiment and also to direct the feedback session.

• What are your goals? • How will what you do reflect these goals? • How will you know whether or not it works?

Past examples of topics have included presentations on FOAM, MOOCs, the millennial learner, game theory in education, the use of virtual reality in educaiton, setting up and running a journal club, using online polling software for teaching. Some of the scholars may be setting up education-based research studies so piloting surveys, getting advice on methodology, or presenting data may also be considered relevant topics.. 2. Journal Club The “journal club” will focus our attention on an article in the medical education literature and will provide an opportunity to discuss the conceptual framework, hypotheses, study design, methods, interpretation and conclusions of the work. The selection of the article is the choice of the scholar but needs to be done in advance to give all a chance to read it in preparation.

3. Practical Applications and Problems As the year progresses, some of the sessions will suggest follow-up questions or applications. These applications and linkages between session topics are options for discussion in the scholar’s hour.

9

COMPLETION OF HESP

There are three requirements to successfully completing the course:

1) The scholar must attend 75% of the sessions. Although some sessions may allow remote access this will

not count as attendance

2) Scholars must complete the Tri Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving

Humans online tutorial (TCPS-2). This certificate is required by the Ottawa Health Science Network

Research Ethics Board to conduct research with human participants. More information can be found at

http://www.ohri.ca/ohsn-reb/default.asp.

3) All scholars will be expected to present a poster at an HESP Research Day. The poster can be a

completed project or a research idea or a description of an innovation. The date will be at the end of the

course and will be announced once the final calendar is created. Note that HESP session leaders, program

directors, Department Chairs, past HESP scholars and DIME Faculty will be invited to attend.

Be aware that due to the COVID19 Pandemic, this will likely be an online presentation rather than a face to

face gathering of scholars.

http://www.ohri.ca/ohsn-reb/default.asp

10

HESP EVALUATION FORM

Please complete this evaluation and return it to the coordinator at the end of the session

Date:

Instructor:

Event Title: Objectives:

•

Please rate the quality of this activity on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)

Met the stated learning objectives 1 2 3 4 5

Enhanced my knowledge 1 2 3 4 5

Satisfied my expectation 1 2 3 4 5

Conveyed information that applied to my education activities 1 2 3 4 5

Allocated at least 25% of the time for interaction 1 2 3 4 5

Did you perceive any degree of bias in any part of the program?

If yes, please describe. Yes _____ No ______

What was the perceived bias?

Were any of the following CanMEDS / CanMEDS-FM roles addressed in this session? Medical/FM Expert Yes _____ No ______ Communicator Yes _____ No ______ Collaborator Yes _____ No ______ Leader Yes _____ No ______ Health Advocate Yes _____ No ______ Scholar yes _____ No ______ Professional Yes _____ No ______ What did you learn or how will this event impact your education activities:

Evaluation of Presenter

Please rate the quality of the Presentation on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent)

Name of Presenter Overall Presentation

Effectiveness Content Relevance

Used Effective Presentation Method

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Additional comments:

11

HEALTHCARE EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM 2020-2021- PROPOSED COURSE CALENDAR

SESSION Date TOPIC Potential Speakers

1 Sept 15,

2020

Orientation to the HESP and Hot Topics in

HPE research Tim Wood and Vicki Leblanc

2 Sept 22,

2020 Scholarship in Health Professions Education Susan Humphrey Murto

3 Sept 29,

2020 Developing a Research Question Kori LaDonna

4 Oct 6,

2020 Elements of a Research Grant/Scholarly Arc Tim Wood/Jason Frank

5 Oct 13,

220

Information Management in Medical

Education/publishing. Lindsey Sikora

6 Oct 20,

2020 Curriculum Development Jason Frank

7 Oct 27,

2020 Principles of Good Teaching Douglas Archibald

8 Nov 3,

2020 Principles of Lifelong Learning Douglas Archibald

9 Nov 10,

2020 Program Evaluation Gary Viner, Alison Eyre

11 Nov 17,

2020 History of Medicine Susan Lamb

12 Nov 24,

2020 Reviewing Evidence Tanya Horsley

13 Dec 1,

2020 Selecting best Teaching Methods Robert Bell

14 Dec 8,

2020 Remediation Plans Carol Geller

15 Dec 15,

2020 Online teaching strategies Stella Yiu and Jennifer Leppard

NO SESSION – CHRISTMAS BREAK

15 Jan 5,

2021 Survey Methods Doug Archibald

16 Jan 12,

2021 Feedback Samantha Halman

17 Jan 19,

2021 Needs Assessment Aimee Sarti

18 Jan 26,

2021 Quantitative Methods Meghan McConnell

19 Feb 2,

2021 Organization Change Deborah Danoff

20 Feb 9,

2021 Basic Principles of Assessment Susan Humphrey-Murto

Feb 16,

2021 Reading Week

21 Feb 23,

2021 Story telling Marta Singh

22 Mar 2,

2021 Test Validity Tim Wood

23 Mar 9,

2021 Becoming a Medical Education Leader

Warren Cheung, Glenn Posner, Geny

Moineau

Mar 16,

2021 NO SESSION SPRING BREAK

Mar 23, NO SESSION = MERIDITH MARKS DAY

12

2021

24 March 30,

2021 Rigour in Qualitative Methods Simon Kitto

25 April 6,

2021 CBME Claire Touchie

26 April 13,

2021 Leadership Deborah Danoff

April 20,

2021 NO SESSION - CCME

27 April 27,

2021 HESP Presentations

28 May 4,

2021 HESP Presentations

29 May 11,

2021 Assessment Methods Debra Pugh

30 May 18,

2021 Becoming a Clinical Educator Jason Frank

31 May 25,

2021 Annual Review Tim Wood

May 28,

2021

HESP/FEAST/Fellowship Research and

Awards Night

Note: * = content and speaker(s) are confirmed

13

SESSION-SPECIFIC LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Sessions 2020-2021

Session 1: Orientation to the HESP and Hot Topics in HPE Research


Part 1

By the end of the session, the participant will be able to

1. Identify program objectives for the HESP

2. Discuss goals and objectives in detail

Part 2

By the end of the session, the participant will be able to

1. Identify Tips for HPE

2. Introduce current topics in HPE Scholarship

Session 2: Scholarship in Health Professions

TBD

1. Define educational scholarship and distinguish it from teaching and scholarly teaching.

2. List Glassick’s 6 standards for scholarship.

3. Recognize unique features of medical education research

4. Discuss the elements required to become a successful medical education researcher and list resources available.

Session 3: Developing a Research Question

Domain: Educational Research and Methodology

As a result of this session, you will:

1. Understand the concept of problem, gap, hook when describing your research

2. Apply the problem, gap hook framework to create your research question.

3. Describe your research question to others

Session 4: Elements of a Research Grant and developing a Scholarly Arc

Domain: Educational Research and Methodology

As a result of this session, you will be able to:

1. Describe the grant review process

2. Identify parts of a grant

3. Identify common mistakes found in grants

Session 5: : Information Management in Medical Education/Publishing

Domain: Educational Research Methodology


1. Select appropriate resources covering medical education to search based on information needs and apply strategies

to construct effective searches.

2. Describe common metrics used to evaluate the impact of journals, articles, and authors.

3. Describe the Open Access publishing model, its significance, and uOttawa’s support of this model.

4. Have basic understandingof Mendeley, including importing and organizing references, and creating in-text

citations and bibliographies. Session 6: Curriculum Development


As the result of this session, you will:

1. List common competency-based curriculum planning advantages and challenges

2. Describe stages of a curriculum design cycle including:

a. Needs assessment

b. Planning and design

c. Implementation

d. Assessment

e. Program evaluation and evolution including changes and faculty development

3. Develop solutions to overcoming curriculum challenges in their own educational environment.

14

Session 7: Principles of Good Teaching


As a result of this session, you will be able to:

1. Share your definitions of learning

2. Identify the basic assumptions of traditional learning theories

3. Describe some newer approaches to learning

4. Understand the differences among learning objectives, outcomes, and competencies

Session 8: Principles of Lifelong Learning



1. Define lifelong learning, workplace learning

2. Describe some theoretical approaches to adult learning

3. Discuss how lifelong learning behaviours can be integrated into teaching and learning

4. Identify the current theories underlying workplace learning

5. Identify current trends in workplace assessment

Session 9: Program Evaluation



1. Understand why we evaluate programs

2. Understand logic models and “program evaluation think”

3. Have gained experience working with the tools of program evaluation

Session 10: History of Medicine



1. Identify non-medical factors that shape the content and structure of medical training

2. Recognize ways in which History, and Humanities as a whole, can help trainees master knowledge and skills at the

heart of the Physician Competency Framework

3. Describe how historical thinking strengthens a physician’s understanding of social, cultural, and technological

determinants that influence the impact of disease on individuals and society

Session 11: Reviewing Evidence

Domain: Education and Research Methodology


1. Discuss the purpose, value and frameworks of 3 common synthesis approaches including systematic, scoping, and

realist syntheses of medical education research

2. Describe the types of knowledge produced by particular synthesis models

3. Understand basic methodological considerations of each synthesis approach

Session 12: Selecting the Best Teaching Methods



1. Discuss how to incorporate active learning strategies into any teaching activity

2. Practice an active learning technique, Team Based Learning

3. Evaluate teaching methods to achieve the best learning for their learning objectives

Session 13: Remediation Plans



1. Create a learning plan based on a learner's deficiencies in key CanMEDs roles

2. Develop an appropriate remediation/probation plan suited to the learner in difficulty

3. Outline the remediation, probation, dismissal and appeals process at the University of Ottawa

Session 14: Online Teaching Strategies


1. Explain a theory behind flipped classroom;

2. Craft useful objectives;

3. Build suitable core content;

4. Boost student preparation;

15

5. Design 2 virtual activities

Session 15: An Introduction to Survey Research



1. Identify when to use a survey and why

2. Describe the key principles involved in designing and implementing both paper and online surveys

3. Evaluate a variety of surveys

4. Describe the role of reliability and validity in survey research

5. Describe how to analyze and display survey results

Session 16: Feedback



1. Identify common barriers to giving effective feedback

2. Outline the characteristics of effective feedback and identify strategies to improve the quality of the feedback

Session 17: Needs Assessment


As the result of this session, you will be able to:

1. Define needs assessment

2. Create a conceptual framework to guide a needs assessment

3. Select needs assessment methods based on a conceptual framework

4. Describe a comprehensive approach to performing needs assessments in complex multicenter, inter-professional

contexts

Session 18: Quantitative Methods



1. List common study designs in health professions education research

2. Describe and apply the following concepts as they relate to qualitative research methodologies: outcomes, statistical

significance, and effect size

3. Identify statistical methods that can be used for examining differences between groups and examining relationships

between variables.

Session 19: Organizational Change



1. Describe the key elements necessary for change

2. Identify characteristics of effective change agents

3. Address areas of concern including how to establish a vision, process change, and culture change

4. Apply change management strategies to their projects

Session 20: Basic Principles of Assessment



1. Develop a common understanding or assessment/language/taxonomy.

2. List and describe the principles of assessment design including the following concepts: purpose of the assessment,

formative or summative, level of performance required, blueprint, standard setting, validity, reliability, utility

equation

3. Apply these principles of assessment to written (example; multiple choice questions) and performance based

examinations (example; OSCE) relevant to participant’s context.

Session 21: Story Telling



1. Be capable of explaining story as language.

2. Describe the fundamental notions of narrative structure

3. Describe the essential elements required to translate information into story

4. Describe how to use story as a means of connecting with people

16

Session 22: Test Validity



1. Describe modern validity theory

2. describe the types of evidence that supports valid interpretations of assessment results

3. Understand threats to validity and how to deal with them.

Session 23: Becoming a Medical Education Leader



1. Describe how a program of research is developed including the importance of mentors, collaborators, persistence,

and the balance between being a clinician educator and a medical education researcher

2. Reflect on leadership experience of speakers and plan to incorporate at least one suggestion in your career

development as a leader

Session 24: Rigour in Qualitative Methods



1. To identify and describe the fundamental principles of qualitative research

2. Develop greater understanding of the complex nature of rigour in qualitative research

3. Practice applying concepts of rigour in the assessment of rigour in qualitative research articles

Session 25: CBME


As the result if this session, you will: TBD

Session 26: Leadership



1. Identify different types of leadership and leadership styles

2. Recognize their own approaches to dealing with conflict

3. Develop strategies for working effectively with “the boss”

4. Define strategies to assure good mentorship

Session 27: HESP Presentations

Session 28: HESP Presentations

Session 29: Assessment Methods



Session 30: Becoming a Clinical Educator



Session 31: Annual Review

17

HEALTHCARE EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM 2019-2020

Declaring and Disclosing Conflict of Interest The University of Ottawa, Office of Continuing Professional Development (OCPD) requires that all presenters and members of the planning committee complete this Disclosure of Conflict of Interest (COI) form. The 2007 CMA Guidelines for Physicians in Interaction with Industry, Section 24, states:

“CME/CPD organizers and individual physician presenters are responsible for ensuring the scientific validity, objectivity and completeness of CME/CPD activities. Organizers and individual presenters must disclose to the participants at their CME/CPD events any financial affiliations with manufacturers of products mentioned at the event or with manufacturers of competing products.”

This serves as the basis for the University of Ottawa’s Conflict of Interest policies, and is adapted from the Royal College and the College of Family Physicians of Canada forms. The intent of this policy is not to prohibit speakers from presenting, but rather to inform the audience of any bias that speakers may have. All completed original forms must be retained by the party submitting the program for accreditation (referred to herein as the “CPD provider” or “CPD organizer”) for a period of one year following certification expiry, so that they are available in the event that the program is audited. Scientific planning committee (SPC) forms: Completed forms for each SPC committee member must be submitted at the time of application for accreditation / certification.

Speaker, moderator, facilitator, and author forms: Completed forms must be submitted for all speakers, moderators, facilitators, and authors known at the time of application for accreditation / certification. If participants are not yet known, the forms do not need to be submitted with the application. Completed forms must be returned to and retained by the CPD provider. Definitions

The basics 1. All financial or in-kind relationships with for- and not-for-profit organizations (not only those relevant to

the subject being discussed) encompassing the previous two (2) years up to and including the current presentation, must be declared and disclosed. This applies to all SPC members, speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors.

2. Speakers, moderators, facilitators, and authors are responsible for ensuring that their presentations, or education materials – and any recommendations - are balanced and reflect the current scientific literature. The only caveat to this guideline is where there is only one treatment or management strategy. Unapproved use of products or services must be declared within the presentation.

3. Disclosure must be made verbally and also displayed in writing at the beginning of a presentation or included in the written conference materials, whether or not there is a relationship to disclose.

4. The conflict-of-interest declaration forms must be completed and submitted to the CPD program’s provider or organizer prior to the start date of the event or program.

Conflict of interest – a set of conditions in which judgement or decisions

concerning a primary interest (e.g., a patient’s welfare, the validity of research,

and/or quality of medical education) is unduly influenced by a secondary interest

(personal or organizational benefit including financial gain, academic or career

advancement, or other benefits to family, friends, or colleagues).

Perceived conflict of interest – the appearance of a conflict of interest as

judged by outside observers regardless of whether an actual conflict of interest

exists.

Real conflict of interest – when two or more interests are indisputably in conflict.

18

5. The SPC is responsible for reviewing all disclosed financial relationships of speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors in advance of the CPD activity to determine whether action is required to manage potential or real conflicts of interest. The SPC must also have procedures in place to be followed if a conflict of interest comes to its attention prior to or during the CPD activity.

6. Any individual who fails to disclose their relationship(s) as described below cannot participate as a member of the SPC, speaker, moderator, facilitator, or author of an accredited/certified activity.

How to complete the Declaration of Conflict of Interest form There are three parts to the form:

• Part 1 must be completed by SPC members, speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors

• Part 2 must be completed by speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors

• Part 3 acknowledgment must be signed by all (SPC members, speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors)

Examples of relationships that must be disclosed include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Any direct financial or in-kind interest in a for- or not-for profit entity such as a pharmaceutical organization, medical device company, communications firm, government agency, charitable organization, patient advocacy group, research groups, or other sources of financial and in-kind relationships (the organization) relevant to the CPD activity content or development

• Investments held in the organization

• Membership in the organization’s advisory board or similar committee

• Current or recent participation in a clinical trial sponsored by the organization

• Membership in a speakers’ bureau

• Patent holder for a product referred to in the CPD activity or marketed by the organization

• Receiving honoraria to speak on behalf of a for- or not-for-profit organization, including talks for which the individual has been contracted but has not yet received payment

False disclosure of or a failure to disclose a conflict of interest as outlined in this document could require the SPC to replace the speakers, moderators, facilitators, and authors. The uOttawa Declaration of Conflict of Interest Form

Part 1

All SPC members, speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors must complete this section of the form and submit it to the identified CPD program’s provider or organizer. Disclosure must be made to the audience whether you do or do not have a relationship with a for-profit or not-for-profit entity. If you require more space, please attach an addendum to this page.

Title of activity

Date(s) of activity

Your role in the activity

☐ Member of the SPC

☐ Moderator

☐ Facilitator

☐ Speaker

☐ Author

☐ Other: (describe)

☐

I do not have an affiliation (financial or otherwise) with any for-profit or not-for-profit organizations. (Speakers, moderators, facilitators, and/or authors who have nothing to declare should inform the audience that they cannot identify any conflict of interest.)

☐ I have/had an affiliation (financial or otherwise) with a for-profit or not-for-profit organization.

Affiliations

Indicate the organization(s) with which you have/had an affiliation during the past two (2) calendar years up to and including the current year, and describe the affiliation. You must disclose this information to your audience both verbally and in writing.

19

Nature of affiliation For-profit or not-for-profit organization(s)

Description of affiliation

Member of an advisory board or speakers’ bureau.

Received payment from an organization (including gifts or other consideration, or in-kind compensation).

Received/will receive a grant or an honorarium from a for-profit or not-for-profit organization.

Hold a patent for a drug, product, or device.

Hold investments in a pharmaceutical organization, medical device company, or communications firm, or not-for-profit organization

Currently participating, or have participated within the past two years, in a clinical trial.

A relationship with one or more other for-profit or not-for-profit organizations that fund this program.

All other investments or relationships that could be seen by a reasonable, well-informed participant as having the potential to influence the content of the educational activity.

Part 2

All speakers, moderators, facilitators and authors are required to complete this section. The University of Ottawa OCPD requires faculty presentations to be consistent in their use of either generic names or trade names, or both generic and trade names during their presentation.

☐ Yes

☐ No

I intend to make therapeutic recommendations for medications that have not received regulatory approval (ie, “off-label” use of medications).

You must declare all off-label use to the audience during your presentation.

☐ Yes

☐ No

I acknowledge that the National Standard requires that any description of therapeutic options utilize generic names (or both generic and trade names) and not reflect exclusivity and branding.

Part 3: Acknowledgement

☐ I Agree By checking “I Agree,” I acknowledge that I have reviewed the declaration form’s instructions and guidelines and that the information above is accurate. I understand that this information will be publically available.

Name:

Signature: Date:

http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/cpd/providers/tools-resources-accredited-cpd-providers/national-standard-accredited-cpd-activities-e

20

HEALTHCARE EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM

2020-2021

CME/CPD CREDITS

This event is an Accredited Group Learning Activity (Section 1) as defined by the Maintenance of Certification Program of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and approved by the University of Ottawa’s Office of Continuing Professional Development. You may claim a maximum of 105.0 hours (credits are automatically calculated). La présente activité est une activité d'apprentissage collectif agréée (section 1), au sens que lui donne le programme de Maintien du certificat du Collège royal des médecins et chirurgiens du Canada; elle a été approuvée par le Bureau de formation professionnelle continue de l’Université d’Ottawa. Vous pouvez déclarer un maximum de 105,0 heures (les crédits sont calculés automatiquement).

MEDICAL EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM (MESP)

Documents

Transcript of MEDICAL EDUCATION SCHOLARS PROGRAM (MESP)